Find Nearby Plumbers In San Jose, California

Marti's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional service, with many customers praising individual technicians like Erica, Taylor, and Victor for their expertise and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent project completion follow-through, poor communication during callbacks, and persistent pricing concerns. Multiple reviews document incomplete work, unresponsive management after initial service, and failure to honor warranty commitments. While professionalism scores well on punctuality and courtesy, serious gaps exist in accountability and responsiveness to customer concerns.

• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017-2024) document systematic failure to complete work or follow up on callbacks. Customers report being unable to reach the company after initial service, promises to 'make things right' that were never fulfilled, and abandoned projects.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One 2021 review explicitly states the company's contractor license expired in 2019 and they may be operating without license/bond/insurance. This is a serious legal and safety issue that undermines all other scores.
• CODE COMPLIANCE FAILURES: Two detailed reviews (2024 and 2021) document serious violations of local plumbing codes, including improper sewer line installation, water/sewer line co-location, and missing backflow prevention. One customer had to hire another plumber to undo the work at significant cost.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Recurring complaints about overcharging (30-45 minute jobs billed at $400+/hour, garbage disposal installation quoted at $500 for 45 minutes, water heater quotes 2-3x higher than competitors). Some customers report being charged full quotes despite incomplete work.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows, unresponsive to follow-up calls/texts/emails, and staff becoming 'unresponsive' or 'skipping town' after problems arise. At least 5 reviews explicitly mention inability to reach the company.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple instances of wrong parts being installed, incomplete installations (missing components), leaks appearing after work, and poor workmanship requiring re-work by other plumbers.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, there is a notable cluster of 5-star reviews from 2019-2021 with very similar positive phrasing and minimal critical detail. However, the numerous 1-2 star reviews with extensive documentation of problems suggest the positive reviews are not entirely fabricated, just potentially over-represented.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2012-2021. Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2023. The 2024 reviews are both highly negative with serious code violations and abandonment. This suggests potential deterioration in service quality or company stability in recent years.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in the data. While the score of 72.8 is based on substantial review volume (80 reviews) with consistent mention patterns, the company exhibits a critical pattern of incomplete project follow-through, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and potential licensing violations that are not fully captured in a single numerical score. The licensing expiration claim and recent code violation incidents (2024) raise serious questions about current operational legitimacy. Customers should independently verify current licensing status and request detailed written warranties before engaging this company.

Master Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with many reviews praising individual technicians (George, Jorge, Ken, Anthony) for efficient, skilled work and professional on-site behavior. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent customer service and pricing concerns. Multiple reviews document aggressive pricing practices, hidden charges, poor communication from dispatchers and management, and a pattern of billing disputes. While field technicians often perform well, the front office and management create friction through inflexible scheduling policies, unresponsiveness, and what some customers characterize as price gouging. The company's overall score reflects this split: strong execution but weak customer relations and fairness in pricing.

• PRICING PATTERN: 18 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Multiple customers report being charged significantly above market rates, hidden trip charges, surprise rate increases, and disputed invoices. Several reviews describe pricing as 'price gouging' or 'scam-like.' This is a material weakness.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 12) describe rude, dismissive, or patronizing behavior from dispatchers, managers, and office staff. Specific complaints include: being hung up on, refusal to return calls, misleading information, inflexible four-hour scheduling windows, and management (Bart Adams, Mark Wright) being unresponsive or hostile.
• MANAGEMENT CREDIBILITY: Owner/manager Bart Adams is named in at least 3 negative reviews describing threatening behavior (lien threat), refusal to engage with customers, and poor conflict resolution. Manager Mark Wright is cited for poor communication and hanging up on customers.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many individual technicians receive 5-star praise, several reviews describe incomplete diagnoses, repeated failures (hot water heater pilot issue, pipe repair that failed within a year), and work that had to be redone by other companies.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2016-2023, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Recent reviews (2023) still document communication and billing problems.
• SCHEDULING INFLEXIBILITY: Multiple reviews (at least 6) criticize the mandatory four-hour windows, refusal to prioritize appointments, and lack of transparency about arrival times, leading some customers to switch to competitors.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS: Several reviews describe the company refusing to warranty work or take responsibility for installation errors, instead charging customers $200+/hour to diagnose problems caused by their own technicians.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with a significant internal contradiction: skilled field technicians delivering quality work are undermined by poor management, aggressive pricing, and weak customer service. The HIGH confidence is justified by the large sample size (80 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, but customers should be aware that the score masks serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability that appear systemic rather than anecdotal.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Preferred Plumbing & Drain has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive — particularly for emergency and same-day service. However, a persistent and significant minority of negative reviews (spanning the full date range from 2012 to 2025) consistently cite no-show or late appointments, poor communication from dispatch, warranty disputes, and in some cases damage caused by inexperienced technicians that was not properly remediated. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers call rates reasonable or competitive, while others describe bait-and-switch quoting, unexpected charges, and inflated estimates. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, recurring problems after service, and failure to honor warranties or follow up on callbacks. The company's responsiveness to escalated complaints (e.g., manager callbacks, refunds) is noted positively in several updated reviews, but the underlying operational inconsistency prevents a higher score.

• Several reviews from the 2021–2022 period and earlier use generic praise with no job-specific detail (e.g., 'Exelent work, professional and good to work with.' and 'The guys were very nice and professional.') — these may be low-effort or solicited reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• Two reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions from the same user on the same date (2022-05-02, Traci) and were counted as one data point.
• Two reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions from the same user describing the same plumbing nightmare incident (2021-03-02 and 2021-03-03) and were counted as one data point.
• A cluster of reviews from 2021-06-09 with no specific dates and minimal detail suggests possible batch submission or platform migration artifact — confidence in those specific reviews is reduced.
• One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a refund in exchange for removing their negative review, which is a significant ethical flag and suggests the company may attempt to manage its review profile.
• Recency note: Negative patterns (no-shows, late arrivals, warranty non-compliance, inexperienced technicians) are present across all date ranges including the most recent 12 months (2024–2025), indicating these are not historical issues that have been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (290 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the company shows a well-documented and persistent split between excellent individual technician performance and systemic operational failures around scheduling reliability, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

This review set spans multiple years and appears to aggregate reviews for several distinct businesses or operators all operating under the 'Affordable Plumbing Solutions' or 'Affordable Plumbing' name, including technicians named Richard, Dave, Bobby, Robert, Taylor, Jeremy, Malik, and others across different geographic regions including Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, and California. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — approximately 25 to 30 out of 210 — describe serious failures including no-shows, abandoned work, incomplete jobs, rude behavior, overcharging, and unresponsiveness after payment. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple credible accounts of work left unfinished, callbacks ignored, and jobs not performed as quoted. Professionalism scores are moderated by recurring complaints about missed appointments and poor communication, which appear across multiple time periods and operators. Pricing scores are generally positive but tempered by a few credible overcharging complaints and one instance of a quote ballooning significantly after work was done.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover multiple distinct businesses and operators (Richard in California, Dave in Arizona, Bobby in Illinois, Taylor/Jeremy/Malik in Georgia) all sharing the 'Affordable Plumbing' name. Scores may not reflect any single contractor accurately and should be interpreted with caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews are near-identical word-for-word (the 'horrible company' review dated 2022-04-23 and 2022-06-10, and the 'Least expensive water heater' review dated 2020-05-24 and 2020-06-10). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 8 to 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the total review count.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, but negative reviews from 2021-2023 describe serious issues including theft of payment, abandoned work, and threats from staff.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple credible negative reviews describe: (1) taking $1,000 and not completing work, (2) workers using foul language and threatening customers, (3) completed work failing shortly after with no warranty honored, (4) repeated no-shows after confirmed appointments, and (5) a technician misrepresenting services performed. These are not isolated complaints.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION - MODERATE: A cluster of reviews from the same date (e.g., multiple reviews all dated 2025-05-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2020-06-10) with generic praise and no specific job details is suspicious and may indicate batch-submitted or incentivized reviews. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to volume but scores are conservatively adjusted.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability in terms of data volume, but should be treated with significant caution due to the likely aggregation of multiple distinct businesses under one profile, confirmed duplicate reviews, a non-trivial rate of serious negative incidents, and suspicious clustering of same-date reviews; consumers should seek reviews specific to their local operator and technician before hiring.

Mr. Reliable Plumbing & Heating has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise individual technicians (Art, Anthony, Tony, Daniel, Bruce) for punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across plumbing and HVAC work. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — roughly 10 out of 63 — raises serious concerns across all four dimensions, including allegations of incomplete work, price gouging, predatory pricing schemes, poor communication, and jobs left unfinished. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing estimates far above market rate, hidden charges, and pressure tactics, dragging that score down significantly. Project completion is also impacted by several credible accounts of abandoned or botched jobs. The positive reviews are detailed and specific enough to suggest genuine satisfied customers, but the negative reviews are equally specific and credible, preventing high scores across the board.

• Approximately 10 of 63 reviews are 1-star or 2-star, representing roughly 16% of all reviews — a non-trivial negative signal that meaningfully impacts all dimension scores.
• Multiple negative reviews cite predatory or deceptive pricing practices: charging $49-$69 for estimates, presenting rate sheets disconnected from the actual job, and dramatically increasing costs mid-job.
• Two separate reviews (2019-08-22 and 2019-09-05) describe jobs left incomplete or botched, with charges still issued — these are credible, detailed accounts that weigh heavily on project completion scoring.
• One review (2018-01-24) alleges high-pressure sales tactics during an emergency situation and claims the customer overpaid by approximately $4,000 — a serious pricing integrity concern.
• One review (2017-05-09) alleges a quote of $8,000 for a job completed by a competitor for just over $3,000, suggesting possible price gouging in emergency or vulnerable situations.
• A review dated 2017-09-22 describes being refused service without a contractor intermediary, which is an unusual business practice that may indicate inconsistent service policies.
• Several positive reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2016-2020); the most recent reviews (2024) are positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the historical negative pattern should not be ignored.
• No fake review patterns detected — both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, job details, and technician references, indicating authenticity across the review set.
• One reviewer (2017-07-21) updated a negative review to 5 stars after the owner intervened — this is a positive signal for customer service recovery but does not erase the underlying initial failure.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent minority of credible negative reviews citing pricing integrity issues, incomplete work, and poor communication — potential customers should request itemized written quotes upfront and verify scope of work before authorizing any payment.